United States District Court, D. Arizona
AMENDED ORDER [*]
A. TEILBORG, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court are Omron Corporation's
(“Defendant”) motions to preclude testimony of
IceMOS Technology Corporation's (“Plaintiff”)
experts Walter Bratic (Doc. 293) and Uzi Sasson (Doc. 299)
(collectively, “Defendant's Daubert
Motions”). The Court now rules on the
September 4, 2019, Defendant filed its Motion to Preclude
Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Walter Bratic (Doc. 293).
Plaintiff responded on September 19, 2019 (Doc. 332), and
Defendant filed its Reply on September 25, 2019 (Doc. 337).
September 5, 2019, Defendant filed its Motion to Preclude
Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Uzi Sasson (Doc. 299).
Plaintiff responded on September 19, 2019 (Doc. 333), and
Defendant filed its Reply on September 26, 2019 (Doc. 340).
parties also filed various motions to seal relating to
Defendant's Daubert Motions.
is in the business of selling super junction metal oxide
semiconductor field-effect transistors
(“MOSFETs”). (Doc. 25 at 2). Plaintiff needs
fabrication services to produce these products.
(Id.). In 2007, Defendant purchased a wafer
fabrication facility and shortly thereafter suggested to
Plaintiff that Defendant and Plaintiff should enter into
business together. (Id.). After negotiations, the
two parties eventually came to an agreement (“Supply
Agreement”) on February 28, 2011. (See id.).
The Supply Agreement provided that Defendant would
“perform the fabrication requested by Plaintiff”
and that Defendant would “fully resource the
development of all generations of” Plaintiff's
super junction MOSFET (“SJ MOSFET”) for the
duration of the agreement. (Id.; see also
Doc. 59 at 10; Doc. 60 at 16). On March 6, 2018, the Supply
Agreement terminated. (Doc. 60 at 37). Plaintiff alleges
breach of contract and fraud and seeks actual damages. (Doc.
59 at 33- 38). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges damages for
lost profits and lost development support. (See Doc.
59 at 33-35). The Court has dismissed Plaintiff's claims
for lost profits on summary judgment but denied summary
judgment as to the lost development support claim. (Doc.
party seeks to offer an expert opinion, the party must show
that the expert's opinion satisfies the requirements set
forth by Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Rule 702 provides:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of
an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert's scientific,
technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier
of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the
principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Fed. R. Evid. 702. Trial judges must make a preliminary
assessment on whether expert testimony is admissible. See
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589
(1993). “[T]he trial judge must ensure that any and all
scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only
relevant, but reliable.” Id. The Rule 702
inquiry is “flexible” and its “focus, of
course, must be ...